Representative Rick Brattin (r) is the republican controlled General Assembly’s poster boy for right wingnut legislation. A bill, introduced on January 23, 2013 – in regard to arming school teachers and/or school administrators:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 276

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BRATTIN (Sponsor), COX, BAHR, SMITH (120), NEELY, BROWN AND MCGAUGH (Co-sponsors).

0608L.02I      D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal sections 571.107 and 590.010, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof six new sections relating to school protection officers, with penalty provisions.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Sections 571.107 and 590.010, RSMo, are repealed and six new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 160.665, 571.107, 590.010, 590.200, 590.205, and 590.207, to read as follows:

           160.665. 1. Any school district within the state may designate one or more elementary or secondary school teachers or administrators as a school protection officer. The responsibilities and duties of a school protection officer are voluntary and shall be in addition to the normal responsibilities and duties of the teacher or administrator. Any compensation for additional duties relating to service as a school protection officer shall be funded by the local school district, with no state funds used for such purpose.

           2. Any person designated by a school district as a school protection officer shall be authorized to carry concealed firearms in any school in the district and shall be required to keep such firearm on his or her person at all times while on school property. Any school protection officer who violates this subsection shall be removed immediately from the classroom and subject to employment termination proceedings.

           3. Any person designated as a school protection officer may detain, on view, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, or any policy of the school.

           4. Any person detained by a school protection officer for violation of any state law shall, as soon as practically possible, be turned over to a law enforcement officer. However, in no case shall a person detained under the provisions of this section be detained by a school protection officer for more than four hours.

           5. Any person detained by a school protection officer for violation of any school policy shall, as soon as practically possible, be turned over to a school administrator. However, in no case shall a person detained under the provisions of this section be detained by a school protection officer for more than four hours.

           6. Any teacher or administrator of an elementary or secondary school who seeks to be designated as a school protection officer shall request such designation, in writing, and submit it to the superintendent of the school district which employs him or her as a teacher or administrator. Along with this request the teacher or administrator shall also submit proof that he or she has a valid concealed carry endorsement and shall submit a certificate of school protection officer training program completion from a training program approved by the director of the department of public safety which demonstrates that such person has successfully completed the training requirements established by the POST commission under chapter 590 for school protection officers.

           7. No school district may designate a teacher or administrator as a school protection officer unless such person has a valid concealed carry endorsement and has successfully completed a school protection officer training program which has been approved by the director of the department of public safety.

           8. Any school district which designates a teacher or administrator as a school protection officer shall, within thirty days, notify, in writing, the director of the department of public safety of the designation which shall include the following:

           (1) The full name, date of birth, and address of the officer;

           (2) The name of the school district; and

           (3) The date such person was designated as a school protection officer.

Notwithstanding any other law, any identifying information collected under the authority of this subsection shall not be considered public information and shall not be subject to a sunshine request made under chapter 610.

           9. A school district may revoke the designation of a person as a school protection officer for any reason and shall immediately notify the designated school protection officer, in writing, of the revocation. The school district shall also within thirty days of the revocation notify the director of the department of public safety, in writing, of the revocation of the designation of such person as a school protection officer.

           10. The director of the department of public safety shall maintain a listing of all persons designated by school districts as school protection officers and shall make this list available to all law enforcement agencies.

[….]

[emphasis in original]

Further into the bill the language removes restrictions on conceal carry:

….(10) Any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body of the higher education institution or a school official or the district school board, unless the person with the concealed carry endorsement or permit is a teacher or administrator of an elementary or secondary school who has been designated by his or her school district as a school protection officer and is carrying a firearm in a school within that district, in which case no consent is required. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises….

[emphasis in original]

Wait a minute. Will a university within a school district have to allow guns on their campuses for K-12 teachers or administrators who are designated as “school protection officers”? Just asking.

But wait, there’s more:

[….]

(6) “School protection officer”, an elementary or secondary school teacher or administrator who has been designated as a school protection officer by a school district.

           590.200. 1. The POST commission shall:

           (1) Establish minimum standards for the training of school protection officers;

           (2) Set the minimum number of hours of training required for a school protection officer; and

           (3) Set the curriculum for school protection officer training programs.

           2. At a minimum this training shall include:

           (1) Instruction specific to the prevention of incidents of violence in schools;

           (2) The handling of emergency or violent crisis situations in school settings;

           (3) A review of all state criminal laws;

           (4) Training involving the use of defensive force; and

           (5) Training involving the use of deadly force.

           590.205. 1. The POST commission shall establish minimum standards for school protection officer training instructors, training centers, and training programs.

           2. The director shall develop and maintain a list of approved school protection officer training instructors, training centers, and training programs. The director shall not place any instructor, training center, or training program on its approved list unless such instructor, training center, or training program meets all of the POST commission requirements under this section and section 590.200. The director shall make this approved list available to every school district in the state.

           3. Each person seeking entrance into a school protection officer training center or training program shall submit a fingerprint card and authorization for a criminal history background check to include the records of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the training center or training program where such person is seeking entrance. The training center or training program shall cause a criminal history background check to be made and shall cause the resulting report to be forwarded to the school district where the elementary school teacher or administrator is seeking to be designated as a school protection officer.

           4. No person shall be admitted to a school protection officer training center or training program unless such person submits proof to the training center or training program that he or she has a valid concealed carry endorsement.

           5. A certificate of school protection officer training program completion may be issued to any applicant by any approved school protection officer training instructor. On the certificate of program completion the approved school protection officer training instructor shall affirm that the individual receiving instruction has taken and passed a school protection officer training program that meets the requirements of this section and section 590.200 and that the individual has a valid concealed carry endorsement. The instructor shall also provide a copy of such certificate to the director of the department of public safety.

           590.207. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person designated as a school protection officer under the provisions of section 160.665 who fails to properly carry his or her concealed weapon on his or her person at all times while on school property as proscribed under subsection 2 of section 160.655 shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and shall be subject to employment termination proceedings within the school district.

           2. Any school employee who discloses any information collected under subsection 8 of section 160.655 that contains identifying personal information about any person designated as a school protection officer to anyone other than those authorized to receive the information under subsection 8 of section 160.655 shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and shall be subject to employment termination proceedings within the school district.

[emphasis in original]

“…Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person designated as a school protection officer under the provisions of section 160.665 who fails to properly carry his or her concealed weapon on his or her person at all times while on school property as proscribed under subsection 2 of section 160.655 shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and shall be subject to employment termination proceedings within the school district…”

Well, if you’re a K-12 teacher or administrator and you’re gonna carry a concealed firearm under this law you have to do so all the time on any school property.

“…Any school employee who discloses any information collected under subsection 8 of section 160.655 that contains identifying personal information about any person designated as a school protection officer to anyone other than those authorized to receive the information under subsection 8 of section 160.655 shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and shall be subject to employment termination proceedings within the school district…”

As if anyone else couldn’t possibly notice? What is this, a “neutralize the parents who don’t want their kids going to school around guns in a free fire zone populated by amateurs” provision? Under this provision a school employee who is asked by a parent about guns in their child’s school can neither confirm nor deny the presence of those guns.

Previously:

HB 278: on the side of preening self-righteousness in the “War on Labor Day” (January 26, 2013)

HB 291: keping misooree stoopit (January 24, 2013)

HB 1109: because the contrived right wingnut “War on [the holiday season]” supersedes any sense (December 27, 2011)

“Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.” – Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755)

Introduced in the Missouri General Assembly by Representative Rick Brattin (r) on January 23, 2013.

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 278

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BRATTIN (Sponsor), RIDDLE, LICHTENEGGER, HANSEN, BAHR, KOENIG, WHITE, FRANKLIN, LOVE, BURLISON, PIKE, FREDERICK AND NEELY (Co-sponsors).

0507L.02I     D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 9, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to federal holidays.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 9, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 9.015, to read as follows:

           9.015. No state or local governmental entity, public building, public park, public school, or public setting or place shall ban or otherwise restrict the practice, mention, celebration, or discussion of any federal holiday.

[emphasis in original]

Seriously?

Federal Holidays

2013

Federal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees….

Tuesday, January 1 New Year’s Day

Monday, January 21 Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Monday, February 18 * Washington’s Birthday

Monday, May 27 Memorial Day

Thursday, July 4 Independence Day

Monday, September 2 Labor Day

Monday, October 14 Columbus Day

Monday, November 11 Veterans Day

Thursday, November 28 Thanksgiving Day

Wednesday, December 25 Christmas Day

[….]

* This holiday is designated as “Washington’s Birthday” in section 6103(a) of title 5 of the United States Code, which is the law that specifies holidays for Federal employees. Though other institutions such as state and local governments and private businesses may use other names, it is our policy to always refer to holidays by the names designated in the law.

Happy Chrismahanakwanzakah.

Previously:

HB 291: keping misooree stoopit (January 24, 2013)

HB 1109: because the contrived right wingnut “War on [the holiday season]” supersedes any sense (December 27, 2011)

Cue the banjos. A bill, introduced yesterday in the General Assembly:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 291

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BRATTIN (Sponsor), KOENIG AND BAHR (Co-sponsors).

0506L.01I      D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapters 170 and 174, RSMo, by adding thereto two new sections relating to standard science instruction.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapters 170 and 174, RSMo, are amended by adding thereto two new sections, to be known as sections 170.018 and 174.890, to read as follows:

           170.018. 1. This section shall be known as, and may be cited as, the “Missouri Standard Science Act”….

[….]

(a) The origin of life on earth is inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction. There are no plausible mechanisms or present-day experiments to prove the naturalistic origin of the first independent living organism;

           (b) All original species on earth are inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction. There are no significant mechanisms or present-day experiments to prove the naturalistic development of earth’s species from microscopic organisms

[….]

3. All science taught in Missouri public elementary and secondary schools, including material concerning physics, chemistry, biology, health, physiology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, ecology, climatology, or other science topics shall be standard science. All standard science course materials and instruction shall meet the following criteria:

[….]

(c) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design.

[….]

174.890. 1. Notwithstanding any other law, any introductory science course taught at any public institution of higher education in this state, including material concerning physics, chemistry, biology, health, physiology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, ecology, climatology, or other science topics, shall be standard science. All standard science course materials and instruction shall meet the following criteria:

[….]

(b) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught. If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth’s biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course;

           (c) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught…

[….]

[emphasis in original]

They need to add teaching the Gish Gallop in debate classes:

Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it….

Evidently the national mouthpiece for the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturing industry isn’t the final arbiter.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

….It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is….

[emphasis added]

Nope, nothing there either about a county sheriff in out state Missouri.

There was a recent splash in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal about a sternly worded letter from Johnson County (Missouri) Sheriff Chuck Heiss (r) addressed to President Barack Obama. Supposedly there were other sternly worded letters from a smattering of county sheriffs across the country, though definitely not a majority of them.

There was a lead editorial [subscription required] in the January 23, 2013 Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal criticizing the Johnson County Sheriff for using his publicly funded sheriff’s website to express his political opinion.

In addition, there were two extensive letters to the editor in the same January 23, 2013 print edition of the paper taking issue with Sheriff Heiss’ (r) assertions:

Your paper recently published (Jan. 18) the full text of the Johnson County Sheriff’s public letter to the U.S. president. This letter seems very concerned about efforts of the administration to address some of the underlying issues that have led to several recent shootings throughout the U.S. The letter proclaims in a concluding sentence for sheriffs in this state to “rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation or executive order that … diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

Unfortunately a reader of that letter would learn nothing about the scope of this right, nothing about the administration’s proposals that concerns its author, and nothing on alternative policies to the problems of “gun violence in our nation.”

Certainly the letter cannot seriously be suggesting that the rights under the Second Amendment are absolute. It is impossibly difficult to find any constitutional right to be absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court suggested that certain limitations could be imposed on gun use and ownership when it only recently found government restrictions on an individual right to bear arms to violate the Second Amendment. Since these decisions are very recent (2008, 2010) we do not know the actual scope of these rights and thus we cannot know with any great certainty that the administration’s proposals would actually “diminish” Second Amendment rights. These proposals will need to be enacted and tested in the courts to see if they are ultimately unconstitutional. Thus, the letter’s concluding sentence may be little more than hyperbole, unless the author sees himself as having a power to provide an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution.

The letter objects to the “tone of (the) administration.” The reader of your newspaper will look in vain in an attempt to get a clear sense of this “tone”; there is no supporting specificity to this objection to the administration’s proposals. This newspaper’s readers would be better informed on these issues if there had been a mention of this website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issu… Here there is a link to the full text of the president’s plan. Your readers can judge for themselves whether the administration’s proposals would unreasonably restrict a right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and whether they would help to prevent another of these recent horrific acts of violence.

As for policy suggestions, the purpose of the letter may have been merely to defend the notion of a restriction-free Second Amendment. However, it clearly implies that a restriction-free right to bear arms is a significant means to prevent a society from being “overrun with criminal element.” Citing the impact of Mexico’s drug cartels upon that country may not support this argument. Mexico’s constitution guarantees the right to have arms. Though this guarantee explicitly permits restrictions on ownership, yet a significant amount of these cartels’ firearms come from the far less-restricted gun market in the U.S. A further counterbalance to the letter’s cited experiences of other nations are those of the many democratic countries, not so impacted by gun smuggling from the U.S., that do not guarantee an individual unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, and have far smaller homicide rates than the U.S., and are not apparently “ripe for government oppression.”

It would be good for this newspaper to encourage open discussion on this important issue. However, to reproduce only the full text of a public letter to the president that provides no information for the reader with which to assess its many unsupported assertions is disappointing and does little to further public debate.

Don Wallace

Warrensburg

[letter reproduced with the permission of the author]

The second letter:

I’d like to express my strong disagreement with a letter sent to President Obama by Johnson County Sheriff Chuck Heiss, which appeared in Friday’s Daily Star-Journal. In his letter to the president, Sheriff Heiss assumes that the Second Amendment is an absolute right. For example, he says: “Any attempt to restrict these Second Amendment rights through executive order is unconstitutional and tantamount to an all out assault on the United States Constitution.” He also says that, pursuant to his responsibilities as sheriff of Johnson County, he will “with great vigor and conviction … urge (his) fellow sheriffs in the state of Missouri and across this great nation to rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes (citizens’) constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

In 2008, in a case called District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court for the first time in this nation’s history ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to carry and bear arms – a fact that flatly contradicts Sheriff Heiss’s contention that “(t)he Second Amendment to the United States has long guaranteed our citizens the right to keep and bear arms and is central to our ability to live in a free society.” Nonetheless, the majority opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, recognized that there were limits to the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. “Like most rights,” Justice Scalia wrote, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” At the end of this paragraph, Scalia attached a footnote, which reads: “We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.” Moreover, Scalia mentioned the possibility of banning particular types of guns – a subject that is particularly relevant in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Conn., and current discussions about bans on assault weapons and high capacity cartridges. “It may be objected,” Scalia continues, “that if weapons that are most useful in military service, M-16 rifles and the like, may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”) But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Thus, nothing in the majority opinion in Heller would prohibit the president and Congress from placing what many people would consider to be reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment right.

Jim Staab

Warrensburg

[letter reproduced with the permission of the author]

That would indeed be a novel approach – letting, you know, actually facts find their way into a national discussion about guns and gun violence.

Previously:

On threading the needle and being in favor of both the Second Amendment and gun control (January 23, 2013)

…He may have junk food ready made

And if he posts his Twitter light

He’ll have his access to the right.

Okay, this is funny:

Eli Yokley ‏@eyokley

The plane issue has been one that Republicans have pretty successfully hounded Nixon on for years… Can’t imagine it polls well. #MOGov #2016 2:59 PM – 23 Jan 13

Brandon H. ‏@BHIndepMO

define successfully please | rt @eyokley The plane issue has been one that Republicans have pretty successfully hounded Nixon on for years 3:04 PM – 23 Jan 13

Eli Yokley @eyokley

@BHIndepMO Um, everyone knows about it and we’re still talking about it. 3:04 PM – 23 Jan 13

Um, tautology much?

Brandon H. ‏@BHIndepMO

@eyokley has it really changed anything aside from that? the Rs can only go to the point that they see their own planes/plane rides 3:06 PM – 23 Jan 13

It gets better:

caitlin legacki ‏@caitleg

He won by only 14% RT @eyokley: The plane issue has been one that GOP have pretty successfully hounded Nixon on Can’t imagine it polls well. 3:10 PM – 23 Jan 13

Eli Yokley ‏@eyokley

@caitleg 1) you of all people know that plane stuff sticks with people, 2) 2016: Whole new ballgame. 3:11 PM – 23 Jan 13

Brandon H. ‏@BHIndepMO

@caitleg we need a formula to figure out how many planes would have cost Jay (or Claire) re-election last year. 3:12 PM – 23 Jan 13

caitlin legacki ‏@caitleg

@eyokley you’re right. The plane stuff was so effective against Claire that she won by only 16%. Ooof. 3:13 PM – 23 Jan 13

That last one left a mark.

Previously:

He doth protest too much, methinks (December 30, 2012)

Introduced today in the Missouri Senate:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILL NO. 183

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY SENATOR SATER.

Read 1st time January 22, 2013, and ordered printed.

TERRY L. SPIELER, Secretary.

0699S.02I

AN ACT

To amend chapter 576, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the offense of unlawful search, with a penalty provision.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 576, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 576.175, to read as follows:

576.175. 1. For the purposes of this section, the term “government officer” shall mean a person who is:

(1) An officer, employee, or agent of the federal or state government, or any political subdivision thereof;

(2) Acting under a contract with the federal or state government, or a political subdivision thereof, to provide security or law enforcement services; or

(3) Acting under color of federal, state, or local law.

2. A person commits the offense of unlawful search if such person is a government officer and, as part of a determination of whether to grant another person access to a publicly accessible venue or form of transportation, such person intentionally and without probable cause:

(1) Touches the anus, breast, buttocks, or sexual organ of the other person, including touching through clothing;

(2) Removes a child younger than eighteen years of age from the physical custody or control of a parent, guardian of the child, or a person standing in the stead of a parent or guardian of the child;

(3) Otherwise engages in conduct constituting an offense under subdivision (5) of subsection 1 of section 565.070; or

(4) Harasses, delays, coerces, threatens, intimidates, or effectively denies or conditions access to the venue or form of transportation because of the person’s refusal to consent to any of the actions described in this subsection.

3. The offense of unlawful search is a class A misdemeanor.

[emphasis in original]

“…Removes a child younger than eighteen years of age from the physical custody or control of a parent, guardian of the child, or a person standing in the stead of a parent or guardian of the child…”

“…or effectively denies or conditions access to the venue or form of transportation because of the person’s refusal to consent to any of the actions described in this subsection…”

If you won’t go through a scanner and if you won’t consent to a search the TSA isn’t going to let you on the plane. Uh, generally, air travel falls under interstate commerce. And that’s when the supremacy clause kicks in:

In the United States Constitution, Article VI:

….This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding….

Jobs bill? What jobs bill?

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C091145 01/22/2013 FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER Centene Management Company LLC Centene Corporation St Louis MO 63105 1/22/2013 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Recharging or charging up?

It is always instructive to read the writing of an important, fair and balanced reporter in the Show Me State. Steve Kraske, the chief political correspondent, does an admirable job reporting the concerns of the junior Senator from Missouri.

These concerns that the junior Senator has are important because Kraske, an important stenographer correspondent for one of the important newspapers in Missouri, notes that Blunt “is known as a “reasonable” Republican who understands compromise. But he’s clearly beyond frustrated with the president just days before Obama’s second inauguration.”

Below the fold is what frustrates the “reasonable” Republican.  

Blunt was asked about the raising the debt limit.

“If you’re the president, you can’t just say in an authoritative way, ‘This is the way it’s going to be.’ If you’re the dictator, you can say that. If you’re the king, you can say that. If you’re the omnipotent power, you can say that.”

But Obama has to work with Republicans, who still control the House. Yet he demanded anew on Monday that Congress unconditionally increase the debt limit. No negotiations, the president said. No agreement to raise the ceiling in exchange for an equal portion of spending cuts, even though that’s what’s happened before.

Just raise the limit, Obama said.

. . .

The problem is, Blunt and other Republicans don’t take kindly to dictates. They don’t take kindly to Obama setting all the rules. It’s a tone thing that rubs them raw – that professorial attitude Obama has been criticized for.

“How do you get anything done if you immediately start telling the other side that has to work with you, ‘I’m not going to work with you on this’ ?” Blunt said. “Now what kind of start is that to a new administration?”

As a good stenographer reporter, we can be certain Kraske got Blunt’s irritation right.  

In another world not inhabited by the Kraskes who do such an admirable job in reporting the irritation of a “reasonable” Republican, it might have been interesting to ask the irritated junior Senator what Republican president negotiated on raising the debt ceiling.

Some other questions that might have been asked:

When the junior Senator was in the House, did he ever negotiate with the president on what must be done before he got his vote to raise the debt ceiling?  

Didn’t Obama run and win on not cutting Medicare and Social Security, so why should he now negotiate on what he will cut on those programs?

Of course, isn’t it dictating to the president if he doesn’t give you what you want you will not raise the debt limit at all?

Apparently, I don’t have any knowledge of how a serious reporter is to do his job.  

Introduced by Senator Kurt Schaefer (r) and first read on January 17, 2013:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY SENATORS SCHAEFER, MUNZLINGER AND KEHOE.

Read 1st time January 17, 2013, and ordered printed.

TERRY L. SPIELER, Secretary.

1027S.02I

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment repealing section 23 of article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to the right of Missouri citizens to keep and bear arms.

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2014, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Section 23, article I, Constitution of Missouri, are repealed and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 23, to read as follows:

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned [; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons]. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be inalienable. The state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.

EXPLANATION–Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets [thus] in this bill is not enacted and is intended to be omitted in the law.

[strike through emphasis added]

So, if this gets approved conceal carry becomes a constitutional right. Any where any time?

Hatfields and McCoys! To what degree of consanguinity? Just asking.